Philippine Credit Transfer System

GUIDE TO MATCHING
LEARNING OUTCOMES
(Between TVET and Higher Education)

Edward M. Dela Rosa

Chief TESD Specialist
National Institute for Technical
Education and Skills Development
TESDA
 Presentation Outline

• Overview of PCTS
• Matching Learning Outcomes to Determine
Equivalencies
Overview of PCTS
 Proposed Philippine Credit Transfer System
• A framework for learner progression
through the PQF levels.
• Supports the implementation of:
✓ Ladderized Education Act of 2014
(RA 10647),
✓ Philippine Qualifications
Framework Act of 2018 (RA 10968)
✓ Enhanced Basic Education Act of
2013 (RA 10533).
• Provides the guidelines in implementing
credit pathways for equivalency.
• Promotes Lifelong learning by
supporting learner progression.
Underpinning Principles of PCTS
supports lifelong learning

outcomes-based

learner-centered, fair and transparent

quality-assured

supports institutional autonomy and academic

freedom

promotes co-operation
Credit Pathways Based on Equivalencies

Articulation
• Program Design

Credit Recognition of
Transfer Prior Learning
• Block credit • RPL System
• Specified Credit

Award of
Credit

The PCTS uses articulation, credit transfer and recognition of prior learning as the mechanisms to
determine equivalencies between learning outcomes and to award credit for the purpose of
progression through the PQF levels.
Benefits of the PCTS

• The PCTS benefits learners by providing the framework to maximize the

awarding of credit for learning outcomes previously achieved.

• It will provide the learner with opportunity to advance in his/her

professional career.

• It will guide credit equivalency between TVET and higher education thus
facilitating the awarding of credit to the learners.

• It will benefit the education sector, and therefore also the government and
the community, by reducing inefficiencies in delivering education and
training for learners who have already acquired the learning outcomes.
 Matching
Learning
Outcomes to
Determine a process undertaken by discipline/industry
experts designated by CHED and TESDA
Equivalencies ✓ make a professional judgement that there is a
clear and demonstrable similarity between two
learning outcomes from different programs.
The Guide to Matching Learning Outcomes (GMLO)

➢ The GMLO provides guidance on the

credit transfer mechanism
➢ Credit transfer is a mechanism for
the determination of the equivalency
of learning outcomes between one
qualification and another and
agreement on the amount of credit
that may be awarded from this
matching of equivalencies.
 Learning Outcomes

➢ Express what the learner knows,

understands and can do at the
completion of a program of
learning that leads to a
qualification from the Philippine
Qualifications Framework
➢ The similarity between the
learning outcomes of two
programs is the bases of
awarding of credit.
➢ Matching learning outcomes between different education
sectors can present a challenge because learning outcomes
in CHED’s Policies, Standards and Guidelines and TESDA’s
Training Regulations are written for different purposes, by
different agencies and using different styles.

➢ The Guide identifies principles and approaches to

help bridge these differences and enable equivalencies to
be determined.
1. Comparability of Policies, Standards and Guidelines and
Training Regulations
• Comparing the learning outcomes
from CHED’s PSGs and TESDA’s TR
in the same or similar
discipline/industry
✓ learning outcomes
✓ structure
✓ Subject and units
✓ core and elective component
parts
✓ volume or amount of learning to
achieve the learning outcomes
✓ learning and teaching
approaches
✓ assessment methods
✓ assessment criteria
✓ progression rules
2. Equivalencies are determined by discipline/industry experts

➢ CHED and TESDA determine the

discipline/industry experts from their
educational sectors and jointly agree on
the team of experts to undertake each
matching process.
➢ The appointment of discipline/industry
experts is intended to ensure
credibility and trust in the process and
their selection is made with this in mind.
A Team of discipline/industry experts designated
➢ The team works together collaboratively
by CHED and TESDA
to reach a shared decision about
equivalencies and the amount of credit
that could be awarded.
3. Comparability of PQF Levels

➢ The PQF level is an indicator of the

complexity, breadth and depth of
learning and learner autonomy
required to achieve the learning
outcome at each level and is the
starting point for matching learning
outcomes. PQF level descriptors
describe the differences between the
levels.
4. Comparability of Discipline/Industry area

➢ The matching of learning outcomes to determine equivalencies is

primarily a matching of the discipline content in a higher education
program with the industry requirements in TVET program.
➢ The learning outcomes being compared are required to be
sufficiently similar.
➢ The wording of the learning outcomes does not need to be exactly
the same, but the outcome must be comparable.
5. Comparability of Common subject areas and common
competencies

➢ The common subject areas in higher education and the common

competencies in TVET may be matched to determine
equivalencies.

➢ The learning outcomes are matched for sufficient similarity in

content, complexity and the PQF level.
6. Comparability of the complexity of learning outcomes

➢ Comparing the complexity of learning outcomes is a matter of

interpretive judgement rather than an exact process and is made in
the context of the other requirements in this Guide.
➢ Making a comparison of the complexity of learning outcomes is guided
by the following steps:
✓ Use an instrument such as Blooms Taxonomy to broadly match the level of
complexity of the learning outcomes.
✓ Consider the active verbs used in the learning outcomes being matched to gauge
the comparative complexity.
✓ Consider the context and purpose of the learning outcomes and how the
learning is demonstrated.
7. Comparability of learning outcomes across multiple
learning outcomes

➢ Multiple learning outcomes are compared to determine

equivalencies for a single learning outcome.

➢ The determination of equivalencies is presented as a matrix of

mapped components of learning outcomes across the total of the
compared learning outcomes in a program
8. Principles of assessment and rules of evidence

➢ The principles of assessment require assessment methodologies to

be fair, valid, reliable and flexible.

➢ The rules of evidence require the evidence collected to make an

assessment decision to be valid, sufficient, authentic and current.
9. Teaching Workload is not considered

➢ Equivalency of learning outcomes applies regardless of the workload,

or number of teaching hours allocated by a provider for a subject in
a program of learning.

➢ The volume or amount of learning allocated to a learning outcome in

a PSG and a Training Regulation is an indicator of the complexity of
the learning outcome and is a factor taken into consideration in
making a judgment about equivalencies.
10. Mode of delivery and assessment not a consideration

➢ Teaching and learning methodologies are not a consideration in

the matching process.

➢ Teaching, learning and assessment may occur face-to-face in

classrooms, in the workplace or online without affecting the learning
outcomes.

➢ Concerns about the quality of teaching, learning and assessment are

to be raised with CHED and TESDA as a separate issue
Quotes on Learning
“Continuous learning is the minimum requirement for success in
any field.”
- Brian Tracy

“We now accept the fact that learning is a lifelong process of

keeping abreast of change. And the most pressing task is to teach
people how to learn.”
- Peter Drucker

"A good teacher can inspire hope, ignite the imagination, and
instill a love of learning.“
- Brad Henry
Thank You and Good Day!